Jusme wrote:iF you haven't already bought one TAM you might take a look at this from Mossberg. It's far from a traditional setup in fact it's so ugly it make me want to get one so Mrs. Jusme can tell me I have no taste.

Iunnrais wrote:Marlinitis a serious disease :) Congratulations on the new purchase.

I caught it when I was 14 or 15 and Dad gave me a Model 60. Wish I still had that one, but it was stolen a couple decades back when we were moving from San Marcos to Austin.

Only issue that I've had on my new production rifles is the barrel on my 1894 is clocked improperly. Missed it when I was looking over the rifle at purchase. I only really noticed it after adding the scope mount. Mainly a cosmetic issue especially since it wears a little 4x scope to help out my eyes. Shoots just fine.

My 1895 and little bolt action .22 are both fine rifles and came off the new lines without any issues that I can find.

unnamed.jpg

Barrel clocking seems to be a chronic issue with early remlins. The front sight is usually OK, but it is the rear sight that is typically canted to the right. Of course I'll examine the rifle before leaving with it, but I'm eliminating that by possibility anyway getting rid of the OEM rear sight and substituting a sight rail and a rear peep sight.

Is your peep sight going to be a receiver mount or tang mount?

Receiver mounted. I'm looking at either the rail-mounted ghost ring sight like the one from XS Sight Systems I pictured above a few posts up, OR, a Skinner rear sight.

This is one area where I have kind of old fashioned tastes. I own plenty of “tactical” rifles. I want my Marlin 336 to still be all wood furniture, with some sights and optics upgrades, but that’s it. Even the Grizzly Customs versions with all that quad-rail business aren’t my cup of tea, and I really LIKE what they do otherwise.

Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

The Annoyed Man wrote:This is one area where I have kind of old fashioned tastes. I own plenty of “tactical” rifles. I want my Marlin 336 to still be all wood furniture, with some sights and optics upgrades, but that’s it. Even the Grizzly Customs versions with all that quad-rail business aren’t my cup of tea, and I really LIKE what they do otherwise.

I'm with you. Though I accept laminate stocks, composite stocks and stainless steel for harsh environs, I prefer Walnut and blued steel. When I was selling guns in the 60's and 70's we all though Colt AR-15's were the ugliest contraption in our gun rack. I don't remember ever selling one. Now I think they're beautiful creations. But like I said, still like my lever Marlins in wood and steel. I think the ultimate insult would a "Tactical" Model 39!

I hadn’t seen those yet. The only Mossberg lever actions I’ve seen so far are the tactical ones, which fell out of the top of the ugly tree, and hit every branch on the way down. But that one there looks OK.

Regarding laminated stocks, I don’t have a problem with them if they are well done. The one on my 336BL is ok, but it isn’t ‘nice”. OTH, the laminated stock on my Gunsite Scout is a very attractive stock, VERY well done. So laminates are OK with me. It’s just that some are sort of utilitarian, and some were meant to be attractive. Although I don’t recommend banging up a wooden stock, the laminated one on my Marlin makes it instantly eligible for “truck gun” status, because it isn’t going to break my heart if it gets dinged up along the way. But it would really suck if the laminated stock on my RGS got beat up, but that is a really nice stock. I’d like to keep it looking that way as long as possible.

Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

The Annoyed Man wrote:I hadn’t seen those yet. The only Mossberg lever actions I’ve seen so far are the tactical ones, which fell out of the top of the ugly tree, and hit every branch on the way down. But that one there looks OK.

Regarding laminated stocks, I don’t have a problem with them if they are well done. The one on my 336BL is ok, but it isn’t ‘nice”. OTH, the laminated stock on my Gunsite Scout is a very attractive stock, VERY well done. So laminates are OK with me. It’s just that some are sort of utilitarian, and some were meant to be attractive. Although I don’t recommend banging up a wooden stock, the laminated one on my Marlin makes it instantly eligible for “truck gun” status, because it isn’t going to break my heart if it gets dinged up along the way. But it would really suck if the laminated stock on my RGS got beat up, but that is a really nice stock. I’d like to keep it looking that way as long as possible.

I was impressed by the reviews of the Mossberg 464 and the Davidson version looks nice. I am not familiar with marine coat, I know Mossberg makes a Shockwave using it.
As for laminated stocks I was really speaking to aesthetics when mentioned them. If I could only have one long gun my heart would rule for Walnut and Blued Steel. Back in the day there were laminate stocks made of contrasting wood, mainly for looks. I wasn't a fan.
Laminated and composite stocks meet a purpose; they are strong and resist movement in humid scenarios and I certainly can't argue with form following function. I have a couple of rifles with laminate stocks - both are .22 Marlins. By contrast I've seen AR's with wood stocks, which is just weird looking to me.